Chad, I'll admit, the website as it is right now sucks, this is not a finished project yet. There's a full fledged redesign in progress that is being pushed out to: http://staging.gemcutter.org Check out the preview post here too: http://robots.thoughtbot.com/post/165832471/gemcutter-org-redesign-preview
I'd also like to pull in all of the READMEs for each gem and show them at the bottom of the gem page and get them indexed for searching. The API is already being used by the gem plugins provided by the gemcutter gem...that's how `gem push` works for instance. -Nick On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Chad Woolley <thewoolley...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Nick Quaranto<n...@quaran.to> wrote: > > Please note I'm not suggesting that all of these happen *this instant*, I > > just want to open up discussion about making this happen and what would > be > > involved. Your thoughts and comments would be appreciated. > > To be honest, this seems Not Ready For Prime Time: > > * Pagination/sorting is wrong and broken > * Project pages contain obviously broken/incorrect links (version and > homepage links) > * Project pages seem to have much less information than I have on > RubyForge. No release notes, individual file links (.gem, .tar, etc), > etc... (broken and less != transparent and accessible) > * I uploaded a gem to RubyForge yesterday just before midnight, it is > still not mirrored sixteen hours later (and it was available almost > immediately on Rubyforge, which shows their mirror process is working > very well) > > That's just what I found in one minute of poking around, it doesn't > give me a good feeling for the overall quality and stability of the > effort. I'm also concerned about long-term support. No offense to > you, but Tom Copeland is a machine, he is always there to support > Rubyforge, year after year... > > In general, if it Ain't Broken, Don't Fix It - and think especially > hard if the replacement isn't a no-brainer out-of-the-park homerun... > > Is there a reason we can't get many of these benefits from > RubyForge.org? For example, your API seems like a good idea, but why > can't it be a wrapper or enhancement to the current RubyGems/RubyForge > ecosystem? A Gem plugin, even? > > Finally, I don't see why there needs to be a change to the canonical > source, since Rubyforge isn't even really one anymore. That ship has > already sailed, many people don't even publish gems to RubyForge, they > just use Github or their own servers. If anything there needs to be > better support for multiple sources (There are good ideas here not yet > implemented). The multiple-naming problem is a bigger but related > issue as Eric discussed > (http://blog.segment7.net/articles/2009/02/04/a-rubygems-github-proposal).<http://blog.segment7.net/articles/2009/02/04/a-rubygems-github-proposal%29.> > .. > > -- Chad > _______________________________________________ > Rubygems-developers mailing list > http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems > Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org<http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems%0arubygems-develop...@rubyforge.org> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers > _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
